Have we gone over any political forum cliches?

Red Lake Circle wrote:

The Jamesian Republic wrote:Have we gone over any political forum cliches?

Constant threadjacking

Okay.

Here’s one: Having the same conversations over and over again.

Red Lake Circle wrote:

The Jamesian Republic wrote:Have we gone over any political forum cliches?

Constant threadjacking

Endless lumps of brain cancer

NEWS (22 MARCH 2003): Operation Positive Iraqi Freedom underway, Karazicu to remain neutral; Insurgent Removal Act instated and active; Mostas reconcentration relocation center to be established; Multiple suspected insurgents killed in gunfight with CZ officers

Karazicu wrote:

Red Lake Circle wrote:Constant threadjacking

Endless lumps of brain cancer

Going over 5 pages in a few hours.

Gothian Crimea wrote:

Meadowfields wrote:I mean, I am rather active on NSG (Hot Takes Discussion)...I either have proved immune to brain cancer or have developed it without knowing.

Honestly(I never used NSG, why would I debate on a BBC forum lmao), most political debates will, if ANYONE is convinced, only convinced people already neutral, which likely isn't the two main people arguing. So I just view them as pointless.

Oh, for sure, but people love when they can argue pointlessly.

Randos joining in late on threads that already have hundreds of pages.

Trivega wrote:Randos joining in late on threads that already have hundreds of pages.

*me in like 80% of F7 threads* /jk

Meadowfields wrote:

Trivega wrote:Randos joining in late on threads that already have hundreds of pages.

*me in like 80% of F7 threads* /jk

F7 doesnt count, most threads arent even counted for OPs.

Gothian Crimea wrote:

Meadowfields wrote:
*me in like 80% of F7 threads* /jk

F7 doesnt count, most threads arent even counted for OPs.

*all F7 threads

Red Lake Circle wrote:

Gothian Crimea wrote:Honestly(I never used NSG, why would I debate on a BBC forum lmao), most political debates will, if ANYONE is convinced, only convinced people already neutral, which likely isn't the two main people arguing. So I just view them as pointless.

It's why I butted out of the Matter of Pride thread for the most part; didn't think I'd be getting anywhere with a nation called "The Proud Transphobe"

See this is another reason why I don't post in NSG anymore.

Moderators allow homophobes and transphobes to run rampant on the boards and yet if I (or anyone else here who is LGBT+) tells them to fuck off, we'll be the ones to get in trouble.

Yeah sure you can argue 'well that's rude' but why should we have to nice or polite to bigots who wish we didn't exist? That goes for all types of bigotry, y'know? LGBTphobes, racists, sexists, etc.

Gandoor wrote:

Red Lake Circle wrote:It's why I butted out of the Matter of Pride thread for the most part; didn't think I'd be getting anywhere with a nation called "The Proud Transphobe"

See this is another reason why I don't post in NSG anymore.

Moderators allow homophobes and transphobes to run rampant on the boards and yet if I (or anyone else here who is LGBT+) tells them to fuck off, we'll be the ones to get in trouble.

Yeah sure you can argue 'well that's rude' but why should we have to nice or polite to bigots who wish we didn't exist? That goes for all types of bigotry, y'know? LGBTphobes, racists, sexists, etc.

*cough* Hukhalia's ban *cough*

Red Lake Circle wrote:

Meadowfields wrote:*cough* Hukhalia's ban *cough*

At the very least, they didn't deserve a whole week. I guess the word "janny" just set something off.

From what I see they seem most active in warning for flaming, and most people are more upset at insults they feel are directed towards them.

Gandoor wrote:

Red Lake Circle wrote:It's why I butted out of the Matter of Pride thread for the most part; didn't think I'd be getting anywhere with a nation called "The Proud Transphobe"

See this is another reason why I don't post in NSG anymore.

Moderators allow homophobes and transphobes to run rampant on the boards and yet if I (or anyone else here who is LGBT+) tells them to fuck off, we'll be the ones to get in trouble.

Yeah sure you can argue 'well that's rude' but why should we have to nice or polite to bigots who wish we didn't exist? That goes for all types of bigotry, y'know? LGBTphobes, racists, sexists, etc.

Not to AFOB (Not even sure thats a thing here)

But I can confirm that that doesn't lead to any good shit for the forum.

And also what sort of bs School bullying policy shit is the "We'll punish you for defending yourself against this bigot who wishes you were dead, how dare you be so rude."

Thats like, some A tier liberal moderate stuff... another reason for me to stay away from NSG I guess.

Also seems like the mods have a bit of issues regarding transparency from what little I know, like maybe ranging from a foggy window to a brick wall, I don't know, haven't been here for too long to be sure.

NEWS (22 MARCH 2003): Operation Positive Iraqi Freedom underway, Karazicu to remain neutral; Insurgent Removal Act instated and active; Mostas reconcentration relocation center to be established; Multiple suspected insurgents killed in gunfight with CZ officers

-snip-

Honestly while I won't pretend that the mods here are perfect, as someone who has been posting on internet forums since she was 10 years old (and remember - I'm turning 26 this month, so I have quite some years of experience with forums), this is honestly one of the more transparent forums when it comes to moderation tbh.

Like I said, it's not perfect and I don't think anyone (except for maybe weirdos) to expect 100% total transparency for moderation (cause that would probably entail the mods having to make all their internal moderation discussion threads about stuff like 'Hey this rule isn't really working out, maybe we should update it' or 'This player is constantly causing trouble and getting banned and DEATed, maybe we should have talks on whether or not they should even be allowed to be here' be publicly viewable) but compared to some other boards I've been on? Yeah this is pretty good tbh.

Gandoor wrote:Honestly while I won't pretend that the mods here are perfect, as someone who has been posting on internet forums since she was 10 years old (and remember - I'm turning 26 this month, so I have quite some years of experience with forums), this is honestly one of the more transparent forums when it comes to moderation tbh.

Like I said, it's not perfect and I don't think anyone (except for maybe weirdos) to expect 100% total transparency for moderation (cause that would probably entail the mods having to make all their internal moderation discussion threads about stuff like 'Hey this rule isn't really working out, maybe we should update it' or 'This player is constantly causing trouble and getting banned and DEATed, maybe we should have talks on whether or not they should even be allowed to be here' be publicly viewable) but compared to some other boards I've been on? Yeah this is pretty good tbh.

Wait...there are online forums which allow people younger than 13 to join?

Gandoor wrote:Honestly while I won't pretend that the mods here are perfect, as someone who has been posting on internet forums since she was 10 years old (and remember - I'm turning 26 this month, so I have quite some years of experience with forums), this is honestly one of the more transparent forums when it comes to moderation tbh.

Like I said, it's not perfect and I don't think anyone (except for maybe weirdos) to expect 100% total transparency for moderation (cause that would probably entail the mods having to make all their internal moderation discussion threads about stuff like 'Hey this rule isn't really working out, maybe we should update it' or 'This player is constantly causing trouble and getting banned and DEATed, maybe we should have talks on whether or not they should even be allowed to be here' be publicly viewable) but compared to some other boards I've been on? Yeah this is pretty good tbh.

Yeah, you've got a point there mate, suppose that the mods we have are rather decent, and perhaps they could be worse. We could have ended up with R*ddit mods.

NEWS (22 MARCH 2003): Operation Positive Iraqi Freedom underway, Karazicu to remain neutral; Insurgent Removal Act instated and active; Mostas reconcentration relocation center to be established; Multiple suspected insurgents killed in gunfight with CZ officers

Meadowfields wrote:

Gandoor wrote:Honestly while I won't pretend that the mods here are perfect, as someone who has been posting on internet forums since she was 10 years old (and remember - I'm turning 26 this month, so I have quite some years of experience with forums), this is honestly one of the more transparent forums when it comes to moderation tbh.

Like I said, it's not perfect and I don't think anyone (except for maybe weirdos) to expect 100% total transparency for moderation (cause that would probably entail the mods having to make all their internal moderation discussion threads about stuff like 'Hey this rule isn't really working out, maybe we should update it' or 'This player is constantly causing trouble and getting banned and DEATed, maybe we should have talks on whether or not they should even be allowed to be here' be publicly viewable) but compared to some other boards I've been on? Yeah this is pretty good tbh.

Wait...there are online forums which allow people younger than 13 to join?

I was on a Zoo Tycoon thread I think at around the age but allowed younger, I think it was ages ago.

I got banned for legit BS, it ended, got banned again for banned evasion like immediately.

It soured my thoughts on Mods till this day to be honest.

Karazicu wrote:

Gandoor wrote:Honestly while I won't pretend that the mods here are perfect, as someone who has been posting on internet forums since she was 10 years old (and remember - I'm turning 26 this month, so I have quite some years of experience with forums), this is honestly one of the more transparent forums when it comes to moderation tbh.

Like I said, it's not perfect and I don't think anyone (except for maybe weirdos) to expect 100% total transparency for moderation (cause that would probably entail the mods having to make all their internal moderation discussion threads about stuff like 'Hey this rule isn't really working out, maybe we should update it' or 'This player is constantly causing trouble and getting banned and DEATed, maybe we should have talks on whether or not they should even be allowed to be here' be publicly viewable) but compared to some other boards I've been on? Yeah this is pretty good tbh.

Yeah, you've got a point there mate, suppose that the mods we have are rather decent, and perhaps they could be worse. We could have ended up with R*ddit mods.

R— mods are the worst mods I've ever seen.

Meadowfields wrote:

Gandoor wrote:Honestly while I won't pretend that the mods here are perfect, as someone who has been posting on internet forums since she was 10 years old (and remember - I'm turning 26 this month, so I have quite some years of experience with forums), this is honestly one of the more transparent forums when it comes to moderation tbh.

Like I said, it's not perfect and I don't think anyone (except for maybe weirdos) to expect 100% total transparency for moderation (cause that would probably entail the mods having to make all their internal moderation discussion threads about stuff like 'Hey this rule isn't really working out, maybe we should update it' or 'This player is constantly causing trouble and getting banned and DEATed, maybe we should have talks on whether or not they should even be allowed to be here' be publicly viewable) but compared to some other boards I've been on? Yeah this is pretty good tbh.

Wait...there are online forums which allow people younger than 13 to join?

Websites really didn't give a shit about enforcing COPPA back in the day lol.

Karazicu wrote:Yeah, you've got a point there mate, suppose that the mods we have are rather decent, and perhaps they could be worse. We could have ended up with R*ddit mods.

Reddit and its consequences have been a disaster for forums.

We should get back to cliches I think.